Many sources tend to lump bastard swords together under the
broad heading of longswords (I do so myself in my unarmored longsword book, to
my shame), and yet a careful study will show a distinction between the two
terms, and, indeed, we see that distinction made manifest in the Fechtbücher,
as this essay will demonstrate. In this essay, I will urge the sense of the
term taught by the great Ewart Oakeshott, who referred to bastard swords as “hand-and-a-half”
swords, meaning that they fell between arming swords and longswords, and could be
used as easily with one hand on the hilt as with two [1]. Conversely, we will limit the term “longsword”
to swords which are generally used only with two hands on the hilt (except in
armor, of course) because using them one-handed, while possible, would be awkward.
That definition is not absolute in the literature. For example, in 1801 Joseph Strutt referred
to a bastard sword as “A sword without edges or point.” [2] However, as early
as 1617, Joseph Swetnam referred to: “The Bastard Sword, the which sword is
something shorter than a long sword, and yet longer than a short sword.” [3] The
term “hand-and-a-half sword” only dates to the late nineteenth century [4], but
it seems clear this is what Swetnam meant and we will hold that term to be
synonymous with bastard sword.
This distinction between bastard swords and longswords shows
up in the Fechtbücher. When we look at
the Gladiatoria Fechtbuch from the first half of the fifteenth century, for example,
we see similar swords used both in an out of armor. All of the swords in that source, whether
used in armored combat or out of armor with a Langenschilte or buckler seem to
be bastard swords, with hilt and blade lengths appearing to be the same for all
(note, however, that this source does not contain any unarmored longsword
combat).
Longswords in Harnischfechten in Gladiatoria: http://wiktenauer.com/images/7/74/MS_Germ.Quart.16_08r.jpg
In Paulus Kal’s 1470 Fechtbuch we see a distinct difference
between the longswords used for halfswording in armor or for unarmored
longsword and the bastard swords used one handed for sword and buckler combat.
Longsword in Harnischfechten in Paulus Kal:
Longswords in Bloßfechten in Paulus Kal:
Sword
and buckler in Paulus Kal:
The distinction is even plainer in Hans Talhoffer’s 1467
Fechtbuch. There we see distinctly different
swords for unarmored longsword or armored halfsword combat (longswords),
Langenschilt combat (bastard swords), and sword and buckler combat (arming
swords).
Longswords in Bloßfechten in Talhoffer 1467: http://wiktenauer.com/images/5/53/Cod.icon._394a_8r.jpg
Longsword in Harnischfechten in Talhoffer 1467: http://wiktenauer.com/images/7/7f/Cod.icon._394a_37v.jpg
Sword and Langenschilt in Talhoffer 1467: http://wiktenauer.com/images/c/c4/Cod.icon._394a_68r.jpg
Sword
and Buckler in Talhoffer 1467: http://wiktenauer.com/images/c/c7/Cod.icon._394a_117r.jpg
From this we can develop a rough grouping of sword categorizations: Arming swords are intended for one-handed
use; longswords for two-handed use (except in armor); and bastard swords can be
used either one- or two-handed. Note that
the distinction between bastard swords and longswords isn’t necessarily tied to
Oakeshott’s sword types. For example,
while the bastard swords in Talhoffer 1467 all appear to be Type XVa’s, some of
the longswords appear to be XVa’s (albeit with longer hilts than those common
in the previous century) while others appear to belong to the Type XVIII series
(the art is not perfectly clear on this distinction, and, indeed, Oakeshott
himself pointed out that blurring occurred between types). The real distinction seems to be that bastard
swords are a bit longer than arming swords, but somewhat shorter than
longswords, especially in the hilt. This
may seem unclear when merely looking at the art of the period, but becomes much
plainer when actually handling swords of each type. The author owns a highly accurate replica of
a Type XVIIIb longsword which is simply not comfortable for use one handed,
even though a Type XVa of similar quality by the same company is easy to use
with either one or two hands.
End Notes:
[1] Oakeshott, Ewart.
The Sword in the Age of Chivalry.
Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997, p. 60.
[2] Strutt, Joseph. The
Sports and Pastimes of the People of England from the Earliest Period:
Including the Rural and Domestic Recreations, May Games, Mummeries, Pageants,
Processions and Pompous Spectacles. Methuen & Company, 1801, p. 211.
[3] Swetnam, Joseph. Schoole
of the Noble And Worthy Science of Defence. Chapter XII. 1617. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H2dBiXFry779WfdpBGFA8Bky7iLHneNi5_Lq9djVhr0/edit#.
Accessed 4/19/2019.
[4] Cox, Trenchard. A
General Guide to the Wallace Collection.
London: Wallace Collection, 1976, p. 155.
2 comments:
Agreed with you thanks for clarification. LongClaw Sword is much more different then Bastard sword.
This is a fantastic breakdown of the distinction between longswords and bastard swords! I always found the terminology a bit confusing, but your explanation using the Fechtbücher sources really clarifies things.
The idea of 'hand-and-a-half' swords for bastard swords makes perfect sense, and the examples you provided help visualize the difference in how they were used.
Thanks for sharing this informative post!
Post a Comment